finance__budget_roles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious rule: Aggrete enforces a code-of-conduct constraint that refuses combining budget records with HR records to profile individuals. It also states what data is included in the result. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields; the second delivers an important constraint. The structure is compact and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information: what the result contains, the role-level detail, and a notable usage restriction. The absence of a mention of return shape or unknown-team behavior is minor given the low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the 'team' parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds only the general context of 'one team, per role,' which does not materially enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource — budget lines for one team per role — and names the key fields returned (backfill-only flag, role owner email). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not clearly differentiate from the sibling finance__headcount_plan, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: the tool reports budget lines for one team, per role. It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use instruction: Aggrete refuses combining these records with HR personnel records for individual profiling, which is relevant to the hr__ sibling tools. It could be stronger by naming which tool to use instead of this one in other finance scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.